Why are so many Republicans retiring? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

dc_dux · 01-31-2008, 11:13 AM

For those keeping score, as of today, there are 28 Republicans and 5 Democratics who have announced they will not seek reelection for the House of Reps.

Three of the Democrats (Udall, Udall, Allen) and two of the Republicans (Tancredo, Heather Wilson) have given up their House seats to run for Senate seats (CO, ME, NM).

This is the highest number of Republicans to retire from the House in more than 40 years.

The reason for some is obvious - corruption investigations.

Any thoughts on why the rest are stepping down?

Rekna · 01-31-2008, 11:18 AM

Because they know they have a poor chance to win reelection and thus it isn't worth the hassle or money to rerun.

The_Jazz · 01-31-2008, 11:24 AM

Some of those Republicans are older than dirt (LaHood and Hastert are both having health problems. I think that a couple of them served with Methusala. Jindal's the new governor of Louisiana. That makes at least 5 Republicans on your list with very legitimate reasons to step down.

But I'm sure that corruption played a part in a few of these decisions. I don't pretend to know which ones, just pointing out the obvious exceptions to the list.

pr0f3n · 01-31-2008, 11:38 AM

Most of them are stepping down to get in under the wire on the new ethics regulations. If they retire this year, they only have to wait one year instead of two to cash in on lobbying gigs.

Rekna · 01-31-2008, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pr0f3n

Most of them are stepping down to get in under the wire on the new ethics regulations. If they retire this year, they only have to wait one year instead of two to cash in on lobbying gigs.

Not most of them, some of them. I believe they had to be out before the end of last year to avoid that. That is why some of the republicans left before the end of their term.

dc_dux · 01-31-2008, 04:00 PM

I think Rekna has it right on the new ethics law. Thats why Trent Lott resigned from the Senate on Dec. 31.

Many of these Republicans are part of the Republican Main Street Partnership...the relatively more moderate wing of the Republican party. When the Republicans were in the majority and because of their senority, they had some level of influence as committee chairs......now they are completely marginalized by the party leadership, perhaps leading to their frustration and retirement.

It will be interesting to see if the Republican party will run more conservative candidates for their seats and continue to take the party even more to the right.....as opposed to the Democrats, who in '06, sought out moderate (ie less liberal) candidates.

If that is the case, it can only be a good thing for the Democrats, whose tent is growing while the Republican tent is shrinking.

guy44 · 01-31-2008, 09:12 PM

It's just no fun being in the minority. Especially in the House, where the majority pretty much does whatever they want all the time, being in the minority means you almost never get a win and are always marginalized. So for a lot of Congressmen, its preferable to do something more productive and less frustrating, be it lobbying or consulting or (rarely) actually spending time with one's family. Combine those facts with the likelihood of a significant Democratic victory in Congress and the White House, the next Republican majority in any house may be a long time coming and not worth waiting for.

Also, it's important to keep in mind that lobbying, consulting, or any other job after being a U.S. Senator or Congressman is going to be quite high-paying and probably less time-intensive than their current one.

dc_dux · 01-31-2008, 09:23 PM

Its probably all of the above....but the numbers are just way beyond the norm this year.

In the last 40-50 years, the average retirement rate of members of the minority party in the House was like 5-7%. That would be 14 Republicans retiring out of 199..yet there are twice that number this year.

Not that I'm complaining.

flstf · 02-02-2008, 04:45 AM

I don't know if this is the reason for the retirements but it seems to me that our country is taking a turn to the left. As an example there are no real fiscal conservatives running for president (except maybe Paul).

Tully Mars · 02-03-2008, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

I don't know if this is the reason for the retirements but it seems to me that our country is taking a turn to the left. As an example there are no real fiscal conservatives running for president (except maybe Paul).

I don't know. I think McCain is more of a fiscal conservative then a lot folks give him credit. He's absolutely against all these "ear marks" and wants to put serious limits on government spending. I believe his record holds true for the most part. I think I read where he's never inserted an ear mark for his state or any other state in all his time in office. Sounds like a fiscal conservative to me.

He seems to get slammed for not being for some of the Bush tax cuts. I fail to see how not being willing to cut taxes without limiting spending makes him less of a fiscal conservative.

01-31-2008, 11:13 AM	#1 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Why are so many Republicans retiring? For those keeping score, as of today, there are 28 Republicans and 5 Democratics who have announced they will not seek reelection for the House of Reps. Three of the Democrats (Udall, Udall, Allen) and two of the Republicans (Tancredo, Heather Wilson) have given up their House seats to run for Senate seats (CO, ME, NM). This is the highest number of Republicans to retire from the House in more than 40 years. The reason for some is obvious - corruption investigations. Any thoughts on why the rest are stepping down? __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 01-31-2008 at 11:18 AM..

01-31-2008, 11:24 AM	#3 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Some of those Republicans are older than dirt (LaHood and Hastert are both having health problems. I think that a couple of them served with Methusala. Jindal's the new governor of Louisiana. That makes at least 5 Republicans on your list with very legitimate reasons to step down. But I'm sure that corruption played a part in a few of these decisions. I don't pretend to know which ones, just pointing out the obvious exceptions to the list. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

01-31-2008, 11:38 AM	#4 (permalink)
pr0f3n Crazy Location: a little to the right	Most of them are stepping down to get in under the wire on the new ethics regulations. If they retire this year, they only have to wait one year instead of two to cash in on lobbying gigs. __________________ In heaven all the interesting people are missing. Friedrich Nietzsche

01-31-2008, 04:00 PM	#6 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	I think Rekna has it right on the new ethics law. Thats why Trent Lott resigned from the Senate on Dec. 31. Many of these Republicans are part of the Republican Main Street Partnership...the relatively more moderate wing of the Republican party. When the Republicans were in the majority and because of their senority, they had some level of influence as committee chairs......now they are completely marginalized by the party leadership, perhaps leading to their frustration and retirement. It will be interesting to see if the Republican party will run more conservative candidates for their seats and continue to take the party even more to the right.....as opposed to the Democrats, who in '06, sought out moderate (ie less liberal) candidates. If that is the case, it can only be a good thing for the Democrats, whose tent is growing while the Republican tent is shrinking. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 01-31-2008 at 04:05 PM..

01-31-2008, 09:12 PM	#7 (permalink)
guy44 Somnabulist Location: corner of No and Where	It's just no fun being in the minority. Especially in the House, where the majority pretty much does whatever they want all the time, being in the minority means you almost never get a win and are always marginalized. So for a lot of Congressmen, its preferable to do something more productive and less frustrating, be it lobbying or consulting or (rarely) actually spending time with one's family. Combine those facts with the likelihood of a significant Democratic victory in Congress and the White House, the next Republican majority in any house may be a long time coming and not worth waiting for. Also, it's important to keep in mind that lobbying, consulting, or any other job after being a U.S. Senator or Congressman is going to be quite high-paying and probably less time-intensive than their current one. __________________ "You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

01-31-2008, 11:18 AM	#2 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Because they know they have a poor chance to win reelection and thus it isn't worth the hassle or money to rerun.

01-31-2008, 09:23 PM	#8 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Its probably all of the above....but the numbers are just way beyond the norm this year. In the last 40-50 years, the average retirement rate of members of the minority party in the House was like 5-7%. That would be 14 Republicans retiring out of 199..yet there are twice that number this year. Not that I'm complaining. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

02-02-2008, 04:45 AM	#9 (permalink)
flstf Easy Rider Location: Moscow on the Ohio	I don't know if this is the reason for the retirements but it seems to me that our country is taking a turn to the left. As an example there are no real fiscal conservatives running for president (except maybe Paul).